2003 (11) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 due to the use of a brand name belonging to others.

Analysis:
The issue in this case pertains to the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 1/93 based on the use of a brand name owned by another entity. The Department contended that the appellants were ineligible for the exemption as they were utilizing the brand name 'Rose,' which belonged to a different entity. However, the appellant argued that they were actually using the brand name 'New Rose,' not 'Rose,' as claimed by the Department. This distinction was supported by reference to relevant invoices and a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders v. CCE, Trichy, which highlighted the importance of differentiating between deceptively similar trademarks used for different classes of goods under Notification No. 1/93.

During the proceedings, the Revenue representative justified the Department's decision to deny the benefit based on the usage of the brand name 'Rose' by the appellants. However, after considering the arguments presented and the case law referenced by the appellant's Counsel, the Tribunal concluded that since the brand name 'New Rose' differed from 'Rose,' it could not be construed that the appellants were using another person's brand name. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument, ruling in their favor and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary.